A Commentary on the Passing Scene by
Robert Paul Wolff
rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
A REAL ZINGER
I did not watch the debate -- it was after my bedtime [I know, I know, don't start], but apparently Warren got off one classic line:
"I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
I love that line too, but I also worry about it in the context of Medicare-for-All. Well over 100 million Americans have employer-provided health insurance and they want to keep it. Many of them are Democrats. The idea of advocating something that will take away from millions of voters something that they want to keep seems to me like a good way to insure Trump’s re-election. It would be wiser, in my view, to advocate Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It. I don’t see the benefit of advocating something as controversial as Medicare-for-All when it has absolutely no chance of being adopted by Congress. Not only would all Republicans vote against, many Democrats would as well.
Maybe I still don't understand this talking point. Who in America wants to keep their employer-provided health insurance? I've heard this skewed as "Americans want to keep their employer-provided health provider," and this is true, but Medicare-for-all isn't taking that away, it's just replacing the method of funding it with something that is cheaper and consistent so they will be able to stay with that health provider while ditching the shitty insurance company that neither employee nor health provider likes to deal with.
Does the NHS allow private health insurance? I should do more research on this. The argument seems to be that if we allow private insurance, they will leech off of whatever Medicare system we decide upon.
I don't have any citations available at the moment, but I have seen numerous press reports to this effect--polls show that a majority of those with employer-provided health insurance have no objection to Medicare for all who want it, but also want to keep their current polices.
An example of this is the so-called "Cadillac Tax," which would tax all policies above a certain amount (my recollection is that the figure was around $25K for a family policy in the original Obama bill, and is somewhere in the low $30Ks today). Congress keeps deferring it. Most of these policies--which cover things like dental care, glasses, hearing aids--are held by union workers in industries in autos and steel, e.g., the UAW. This provision would not even pass the House when the Dems had a significant majority i the House in 2009-11, or in the Senate when they had 60 Dems.
It's the equivalent of tax-free income to the employee. They love it. So would I. Beats the hell out of Medicare.
Below is a report from the Kaiser Foundation that I found on-line. It doesn’t reference other reports I’ve seen that say that support for Medicare for All falls sharply among those with private insurance are asked if they would still support if they had to give up their employer-provided insurance. Nonetheless, it makes clear the risk of advocating a policy of abolishing private insurance for those who want it:
“Health care is playing a prominent role at the start of the 2020 presidential primary season with Democratic candidates offering competing proposals aimed at expanding coverage to more Americans. The latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds a larger share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents preferring approaches that expand coverage building on the Affordable Care Act (55%) rather than replacing the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (39%).
“The poll also finds a slight dip in overall favorability of the idea of a national Medicare-for-all plan. About half (51%) of the public now say they favor such a proposal compared to 56% in April 2019. On the other hand, nearly two-thirds of the public (65%) favor a public option, which would compete with private health insurance plans and be available to all Americans. But as with polling on Medicare-for-all, attitudes toward this change to the current health care system can be swayed by common arguments. For example, net favorability towards such a plan ranges as high as +53 and as low as -18 after hearing arguments either in favor of or against a public option.
“The survey finds that, while a majority of the public hold favorable views of Medicare (83%), the public also has largely favorable views of employer-sponsored insurance (76%) and Medicaid (75%). In addition, both those with Medicare coverage (95%) and employer coverage (86%) rate their own health insurance coverage positively.
“Health care, climate change, and issues affecting women are among the top issues that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want to hear the candidates discuss in the upcoming second Democratic presidential debate. Issues affecting women has consistently ranked among this group’s top issues for the candidates to speak about and when asked specifically what they want to hear about, at least three in ten overall offer topics related to reproductive rights (33%) and equal pay (30%).”
If you have not yet watched the debate I highly suggest you do. It was GREAT! Sanders and Warren formed the perfect duo, and spent the whole evening making every corporate moderate Dem look like an uninformed, craven, carpetbagger. Warren essentially sounded like the Sanders of the last four years, coupled with added policy astuteness. I will now HAPPILY vote for her if she's the nominee. Moreover, Sanders finally sounded like the raving, furious, socialistic, class warrior (i.e., not just a progressive liberal) we all hoped he really was!
DP, I think this is a serious error in communication, largely a product of media misinformation and Democratic subterfuge, coupled with constant 'pragmatic calculation by those with a vested interest in preserving the noxious interconnections between capital and the Democratic party. Unlike certain brands, e.g., Nikes or Mercedes, few people actually identify with, or desire to be, a part of corporate healthcare culture. That is, while it's true many people will buy shoes or shirts just because they are a certain brand, almost no one buys insurance because it's Blue Cross instead of Aetna. There is no corporate brad loyalty here. What every sane individual wants is the following:
Only medicare for all ensures that for EVERYONE. And to augment 1 and 2, it requires mass participation (there's also a serious issue with people both buying taxes for medicare, and then having to optionally buy in with the remainder of their income, that will increase costs if we follow this semi moderate path). If people - a very rare minority - happen to have private insurance that achieves 1 and 2, they won't lose 1 and 2 on medicare for all. Plus they'll save out of pocket in total. This has to be explained to voters, instead of following your path (or Dowd's path, or any one else in opposition to the zinger by Warren that Professor Wolff quoted) where we don't explain the difference, and quail on a left wing platform for fear of upsetting god knows who, and standing by our nihilistic pragmatism. No?
It looks like we’re still talking past each other. I agree that Medicare for All would be the most desirable policy we could have. I also think it’s politically unachievable for the reasons I gave, and you haven’t said anything to the contrary. Beyond its being unachievable, I fear that the attempt itself would adversely impact the attempt to unseat Trump, and you haven’t disputed that.
You suggest that those who lose their private policies will have affordable policies that won’t bankrupt them. I agree. But that isn’t the point. The point is whether Medicare for All is as good as the policy they have to give up. In many cases, it won’t be.
To go back to the beginning, I agree with you on policy. But I’m not talking about policy. I’m talking about politics. Where are the votes?
“It looks like we’re still talking past each other”
I don’t think we are this time, I was talking directly to you.
“I also think it’s politically unachievable for the reasons I gave, and you haven’t said anything to the contrary.”
Right, my point wasn’t to disagree with you that there is a large sector of the population who right now see Medicare for all as anathema (although not THAT large, last time I looked a majority in both parties approve of it). My point was that their REASONS for seeing it as anathema are a failure to communicate the message, intention, and policy substance, of Medicare for all correctly. People somehow think 1 and 2 will be perverted under Medicare for all. They are incorrect and that needs to be explained to them. People are also conflating liking 1 and 2 with liking their insurance package and or company, and that too needs to be addressed.
I located that failure to communicate these basic points in the very structure of the Democratic party, in the media, and in people (at all levels) who are too obsessed with pragmatic optics over the present possibilities the left finally has for the first time since WWII.
So, I have no reason to dispute your data, I want to change your data (as does Sanders and Warren clearly, unlike CNN, Jake Tapper, and the litany of egregious op-ed headlines I see the NYTimes this morning).
“I fear that the attempt itself would adversely impact the attempt to unseat Trump, and you haven’t disputed that.”
Here I do disagree. For two reasons. 1) Trump himself inadvertently ran on something like Medicare for all, and it got him a seat as president. 2) If there’s one thing Sanders is universally known as, it’s being the Medicare for all prophet. And for as long as we’ve had polling, he has beaten Trump, while being the Medicare for all prophet. So I think you’re just factually wrong here. Moreover, I don’t think the choice between a Sanders/Warren versus Trump is going to be broadly and universally decided on just the issue of Medicare for all. You’re putting too much weight on one variable.
“The point is whether Medicare for All is as good as the policy they have to give up. In many cases, it won’t be.”
Now YOU need to defend that claim, since all aggregate data has Medicare for all outperforming private insurance, across the Western – and many parts of the Eastern – world. Also, you need to provide data where “many cases” is not just one or two people here or there, but an actual substantial chunk of the American electorate being medically worse off if Medicare for all were implemented. Anecdotes, and isolated cases, are hardly informative about large structures.
“I’m talking about politics. Where are the votes?”
With the Medicare for all prophet, as they always have been.
It strikes me that if Bernie, for example, says "I support, as everyone knows, a Medicare for all system. If, however, my legislation will not pass the House and Senate, I will, of course, negotiate an alternative that phases in coverage in an expeditious manner." It would eliminate much of the "fear" factor that the polls indicate is well established among voters. Nothing is nicer for a campaign to accomplish than muting or eliminating an opponents criticism without risking, or giving in on, anything (Bernie could also note that playing on fear is Trump's tactic and conservative dems should be ashamed of themselves).
The source of the incrementalist opinion is correctly noted above and it was clear last night that neo-liberal dems wish to feed this misperception, and give video clips to Trump to use against a progressive nominee. In addition to tamping down the fear factor among voters, health insurance issues would no longer be an either/or issue in the primaries, and factionalism would be lessened. I fear that factionalism in the party could cause one faction or the other (depending on the nominee) to walk away from the election raising the odds Trump wins.
At his point I wouldn't try to guess whether Dems get control of the Senate, or how many more seats they will pick up in the House. It may well be that there won't be enough votes to pass Bernie's bill (which I support) and, dare I say, pragmatism demands an alternative. At least I think it does as losing in the legislature and walking away with nothing is not an alternative.
This is a highly fraught situation. Bernie would be smart to take the wind out of the moderate's sails by signaling a possible compromise to be worked out in the future if the need arises.
I think it's Bernie's function to push the debate towards the left without compromising, thus leaving Elizabeth Warren with the role of stepping in with the "sensible" compromise, which now will be much more to the left than it would have been without Bernie's purism.
I'm not saying that Sanders and Warren have some kind of secret agreement, but judging from what I saw of last night's debate (about the first hour), they sure do like each other and are willing to back each other up. They're both super smart and so if I can imagine a possible scenario where Bernie refuses to compromise and Warren plays the role of the sensible compromiser, both of them have been aware of that possible scenario for a while now.
Medicare for All will NOT be as good a policy as the ones a significant number of people already have. It may well be that on average, people will be better off, but those--mostly industrial union members--with better policies already, won’t be. That is a prescription for creating a sizeable number of one-issue voters, much like the 2nd Amendment for gun nuts and abortion for many on both sides. If, as you agree, there is no chance of its being enacted, what is the political advantage of advocating something that will lead many people to vote for Trump?
And anyone who wants coverage for something Medicare for All does not provide coverage for will still be free to get supplemental insurance.
What they will not be able to do is buy private insurance for stuff that MFA already covers, for the reason that to allow that would allow private insurance to siphon off all the cheaper-to-insure (those without kids, those without pre-existing conditions, the young, those without disability) folks, leaving the public insurer to cover all the more expensive folks--while of course allowing the former to transfer into the latter when it suits them (i.e., when they have kids, get older or have a major ill-health episode that drives up their private premiums).
Now, I get it DP that you are saying that this all goes to that part you agree with--i.e., "the policy" analysis--but fails to address the part you are raising concerns about, namely "the politics." But it's not helpful in raising the politics concern to mis-state the facts (as in, people will still be free to get supplemental coverage) or ignore the policy implications (competing coverage will simply undermine the feasibility of public insurance).
As for the politics: well, no surprise there, I fully agree with Chris's analysis on that front.
Very funny, the sequence of last couple of posts on this and other thread. We're tag-teaming like Bernie + Liz last night, Chris! (I call Bernie!)
Btw, as much as I share your glow from last night's wonderful debate, Chris, and as much as I've always been more explicitly pro-Warren than you were comfortable with in the past, might I suggest we have a little caution before fully signing on to the Liz bandwagon. Yes, she was great last night, has been great much of this campaign, and in fact has been great the last ten years. *But* she was a long-standing Republican, continues to differentiate herself from Bernie on matters of fundamental principle, and so we have to remember the difference between:
(1) Managerial liberalism: (a) a vision of let's regulate markets to make them work better, (b) via the means of better deal-making and expertise; and
(2) Democratic socialism: (a) a vision of let's put markets in their place, for the sake of universal access to basic goods of personhood and citizenship, (b) via the means of popular support for wholesale transformation of the terms of debate and rules of the game.
In other words: love Liz, but without Bernie the whole thing collapses. We need Sanders to keep Warren's feet to the first. Not that you're saying any different, but just wanted to be sure.
Talha, completely agree. If Sanders wasn't a constant pressure on her, she wouldn't be the phoenix she was last night. And the whole thing collapses without Sanders. Absolutely. However, the reason I'm giddy about last night is that it does help our cause when these people publicly promise certain things, so that even if Bernie drops dead tomorrow, or bows out of the race, we can now still hold her feet to the fire on explicit promises she made in a public setting.
One other thing I liked about the debate - and in the case of Klobuchar it was a literal Freudian slip - is that EVERY candidate, even the moderate corporate hacks, all stated that THE present political problem is money in politics and as such, good legislation will never get passed. Bernie has and is continually redefining the parties entire platform, and we are finally have a genuine leftward tilt! Glad to see Warren is jogging leftward, and not begrudgingly moping left, arms akimbo.
You may be interested in this bit of analysis too, regarding Warren's previous behavior in 2016.
I do have one overall fear though. Since it's good that Warren and Sanders not fight, and remain compatriots in the battle against the Democratic parties establishment roots, we have a real problem on our hands if or when those two actually do have to go head to head. I COMPLETELY sympathize with people who said never Hillary after Bernie lost (I was one of them). However, whenever these two must part ways, god I hope their mutual supporters are amicable about the process and fully embrace the remaining candidate.
Bernie is 77, almost 78. No one at that age (I'm 73 myself) functions as well as they did at 45. One has less physical energy, one has small problems with short term memory which can be very embarrassing at times (you can't remember your next door neighbor's name) and almost everyone at that age, has chronic ailments, some not so serious (my sciatica), some more serious (my coronary arrhythmia). I doubt that nature has miraculously spared Bernie.
Bernie is a man of principles, not personally ambitious. That is, he does not want to become president out of ambition, but to move U.S. politics leftward. Still, he wonders if at his age he will have the energy and physical health to carry out that task, even if he is elected.
However, he finds that Elizabeth Warren shares many of his ideals and that he can pressure her leftward. Thus, while on a certain level, he still strives for the presidential nomination, on another level, he bets on Elizabeth Warren to carry out some of the political tasks he had set for himself. She's not perfect, she's not as ideologically solid as he is, but she'll do.
Fully agree, Chris. Including on the key points of being giddy and the full-on redefinition of the terms of debate that is happening before our eyes. On the latter, love how pathetic and flat Mayor Pete's attempts to skirt ideological substance via "generational" blather and other feel-good filler kept falling flat. Or at least I thought so--pundits seem to think he did well. I thought besides our two only Marianne Williamson really came off well.
Yes agree with your concern. We just have to hope that the two realize that a joint ticket would be a real cincher--their demographics are in fact quite different in terms of income of supporters: Bernie has more overlap with Biden folks, while Warren with Harris folks. Sanders/Warren is the dream ticket--and the polar opposite of Biden/Harris, which is the full-on nightmare.
M.W. Did come off well, tantamount to that man I love dearly, Kucinich!
Also, she stated after the debate that after listening to Sanders and Warren she is coming around to their version of Medicare for all. Appreciate the intellectual honesty.
I love that line too, but I also worry about it in the context of Medicare-for-All. Well over 100 million Americans have employer-provided health insurance and they want to keep it. Many of them are Democrats. The idea of advocating something that will take away from millions of voters something that they want to keep seems to me like a good way to insure Trump’s re-election. It would be wiser, in my view, to advocate Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It. I don’t see the benefit of advocating something as controversial as Medicare-for-All when it has absolutely no chance of being adopted by Congress. Not only would all Republicans vote against, many Democrats would as well.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I still don't understand this talking point. Who in America wants to keep their employer-provided health insurance? I've heard this skewed as "Americans want to keep their employer-provided health provider," and this is true, but Medicare-for-all isn't taking that away, it's just replacing the method of funding it with something that is cheaper and consistent so they will be able to stay with that health provider while ditching the shitty insurance company that neither employee nor health provider likes to deal with.
ReplyDeleteDoes the NHS allow private health insurance? I should do more research on this. The argument seems to be that if we allow private insurance, they will leech off of whatever Medicare system we decide upon.
Sonic,
ReplyDeleteI don't have any citations available at the moment, but I have seen numerous press reports to this effect--polls show that a majority of those with employer-provided health insurance have no objection to Medicare for all who want it, but also want to keep their current polices.
An example of this is the so-called "Cadillac Tax," which would tax all policies above a certain amount (my recollection is that the figure was around $25K for a family policy in the original Obama bill, and is somewhere in the low $30Ks today). Congress keeps deferring it. Most of these policies--which cover things like dental care, glasses, hearing aids--are held by union workers in industries in autos and steel, e.g., the UAW. This provision would not even pass the House when the Dems had a significant majority i the House in 2009-11, or in the Senate when they had 60 Dems.
It's the equivalent of tax-free income to the employee. They love it. So would I. Beats the hell out of Medicare.
Sonic,
ReplyDeleteBelow is a report from the Kaiser Foundation that I found on-line. It doesn’t reference other reports I’ve seen that say that support for Medicare for All falls sharply among those with private insurance are asked if they would still support if they had to give up their employer-provided insurance. Nonetheless, it makes clear the risk of advocating a policy of abolishing private insurance for those who want it:
“Health care is playing a prominent role at the start of the 2020 presidential primary season with Democratic candidates offering competing proposals aimed at expanding coverage to more Americans. The latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds a larger share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents preferring approaches that expand coverage building on the Affordable Care Act (55%) rather than replacing the ACA with a national Medicare-for-all plan (39%).
“The poll also finds a slight dip in overall favorability of the idea of a national Medicare-for-all plan. About half (51%) of the public now say they favor such a proposal compared to 56% in April 2019. On the other hand, nearly two-thirds of the public (65%) favor a public option, which would compete with private health insurance plans and be available to all Americans. But as with polling on Medicare-for-all, attitudes toward this change to the current health care system can be swayed by common arguments. For example, net favorability towards such a plan ranges as high as +53 and as low as -18 after hearing arguments either in favor of or against a public option.
“The survey finds that, while a majority of the public hold favorable views of Medicare (83%), the public also has largely favorable views of employer-sponsored insurance (76%) and Medicaid (75%). In addition, both those with Medicare coverage (95%) and employer coverage (86%) rate their own health insurance coverage positively.
“Health care, climate change, and issues affecting women are among the top issues that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want to hear the candidates discuss in the upcoming second Democratic presidential debate. Issues affecting women has consistently ranked among this group’s top issues for the candidates to speak about and when asked specifically what they want to hear about, at least three in ten overall offer topics related to reproductive rights (33%) and equal pay (30%).”
Professor Wolff,
ReplyDeleteIf you have not yet watched the debate I highly suggest you do. It was GREAT! Sanders and Warren formed the perfect duo, and spent the whole evening making every corporate moderate Dem look like an uninformed, craven, carpetbagger. Warren essentially sounded like the Sanders of the last four years, coupled with added policy astuteness. I will now HAPPILY vote for her if she's the nominee. Moreover, Sanders finally sounded like the raving, furious, socialistic, class warrior (i.e., not just a progressive liberal) we all hoped he really was!
DP,
I think this is a serious error in communication, largely a product of media misinformation and Democratic subterfuge, coupled with constant 'pragmatic calculation by those with a vested interest in preserving the noxious interconnections between capital and the Democratic party. Unlike certain brands, e.g., Nikes or Mercedes, few people actually identify with, or desire to be, a part of corporate healthcare culture. That is, while it's true many people will buy shoes or shirts just because they are a certain brand, almost no one buys insurance because it's Blue Cross instead of Aetna. There is no corporate brad loyalty here. What every sane individual wants is the following:
1. Robust coverage
2. That's affordable/won't bankrupt them.
Only medicare for all ensures that for EVERYONE. And to augment 1 and 2, it requires mass participation (there's also a serious issue with people both buying taxes for medicare, and then having to optionally buy in with the remainder of their income, that will increase costs if we follow this semi moderate path). If people - a very rare minority - happen to have private insurance that achieves 1 and 2, they won't lose 1 and 2 on medicare for all. Plus they'll save out of pocket in total. This has to be explained to voters, instead of following your path (or Dowd's path, or any one else in opposition to the zinger by Warren that Professor Wolff quoted) where we don't explain the difference, and quail on a left wing platform for fear of upsetting god knows who, and standing by our nihilistic pragmatism. No?
Chris,
ReplyDeleteIt looks like we’re still talking past each other. I agree that Medicare for All would be the most desirable policy we could have. I also think it’s politically unachievable for the reasons I gave, and you haven’t said anything to the contrary. Beyond its being unachievable, I fear that the attempt itself would adversely impact the attempt to unseat Trump, and you haven’t disputed that.
You suggest that those who lose their private policies will have affordable policies that won’t bankrupt them. I agree. But that isn’t the point. The point is whether Medicare for All is as good as the policy they have to give up. In many cases, it won’t be.
To go back to the beginning, I agree with you on policy. But I’m not talking about policy. I’m talking about politics. Where are the votes?
“It looks like we’re still talking past each other”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we are this time, I was talking directly to you.
“I also think it’s politically unachievable for the reasons I gave, and you haven’t said anything to the contrary.”
Right, my point wasn’t to disagree with you that there is a large sector of the population who right now see Medicare for all as anathema (although not THAT large, last time I looked a majority in both parties approve of it). My point was that their REASONS for seeing it as anathema are a failure to communicate the message, intention, and policy substance, of Medicare for all correctly. People somehow think 1 and 2 will be perverted under Medicare for all. They are incorrect and that needs to be explained to them. People are also conflating liking 1 and 2 with liking their insurance package and or company, and that too needs to be addressed.
I located that failure to communicate these basic points in the very structure of the Democratic party, in the media, and in people (at all levels) who are too obsessed with pragmatic optics over the present possibilities the left finally has for the first time since WWII.
So, I have no reason to dispute your data, I want to change your data (as does Sanders and Warren clearly, unlike CNN, Jake Tapper, and the litany of egregious op-ed headlines I see the NYTimes this morning).
“I fear that the attempt itself would adversely impact the attempt to unseat Trump, and you haven’t disputed that.”
Here I do disagree. For two reasons. 1) Trump himself inadvertently ran on something like Medicare for all, and it got him a seat as president. 2) If there’s one thing Sanders is universally known as, it’s being the Medicare for all prophet. And for as long as we’ve had polling, he has beaten Trump, while being the Medicare for all prophet. So I think you’re just factually wrong here. Moreover, I don’t think the choice between a Sanders/Warren versus Trump is going to be broadly and universally decided on just the issue of Medicare for all. You’re putting too much weight on one variable.
“The point is whether Medicare for All is as good as the policy they have to give up. In many cases, it won’t be.”
Now YOU need to defend that claim, since all aggregate data has Medicare for all outperforming private insurance, across the Western – and many parts of the Eastern – world. Also, you need to provide data where “many cases” is not just one or two people here or there, but an actual substantial chunk of the American electorate being medically worse off if Medicare for all were implemented. Anecdotes, and isolated cases, are hardly informative about large structures.
“I’m talking about politics. Where are the votes?”
With the Medicare for all prophet, as they always have been.
Sorry, let me qualify this claim, it was too strong:
ReplyDelete*1) Trump himself inadvertently ran on something like Medicare for all, and still became president.*
It strikes me that if Bernie, for example, says "I support, as everyone knows, a Medicare for all system. If, however, my legislation will not pass the House and Senate, I will, of course, negotiate an alternative that phases in coverage in an expeditious manner." It would eliminate much of the "fear" factor that the polls indicate is well established among voters. Nothing is nicer for a campaign to accomplish than muting or eliminating an opponents criticism without risking, or giving in on, anything (Bernie could also note that playing on fear is Trump's tactic and conservative dems should be ashamed of themselves).
ReplyDeleteThe source of the incrementalist opinion is correctly noted above and it was clear last night that neo-liberal dems wish to feed this misperception, and give video clips to Trump to use against a progressive nominee. In addition to tamping down the fear factor among voters, health insurance issues would no longer be an either/or issue in the primaries, and factionalism would be lessened. I fear that factionalism in the party could cause one faction or the other (depending on the nominee) to walk away from the election raising the odds Trump wins.
At his point I wouldn't try to guess whether Dems get control of the Senate, or how many more seats they will pick up in the House. It may well be that there won't be enough votes to pass Bernie's bill (which I support) and, dare I say, pragmatism demands an alternative. At least I think it does as losing in the legislature and walking away with nothing is not an alternative.
This is a highly fraught situation. Bernie would be smart to take the wind out of the moderate's sails by signaling a possible compromise to be worked out in the future if the need arises.
I think it's Bernie's function to push the debate towards the left without compromising, thus leaving Elizabeth Warren with the role of stepping in with the "sensible" compromise, which now will be much more to the left than it would have been without Bernie's purism.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that Sanders and Warren have some kind of secret agreement, but judging from what I saw of last night's debate (about the first hour), they sure do like each other and are willing to back each other up. They're both super smart and so if I can imagine a possible scenario where Bernie refuses to compromise and Warren plays the role of the sensible compromiser, both of them have been aware of that possible scenario for a while now.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteMedicare for All will NOT be as good a policy as the ones a significant number of people already have. It may well be that on average, people will be better off, but those--mostly industrial union members--with better policies already, won’t be. That is a prescription for creating a sizeable number of one-issue voters, much like the 2nd Amendment for gun nuts and abortion for many on both sides. If, as you agree, there is no chance of its being enacted, what is the political advantage of advocating something that will lead many people to vote for Trump?
Ugh, I give up.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who wants coverage for something Medicare for All does not provide coverage for will still be free to get supplemental insurance.
ReplyDeleteWhat they will not be able to do is buy private insurance for stuff that MFA already covers, for the reason that to allow that would allow private insurance to siphon off all the cheaper-to-insure (those without kids, those without pre-existing conditions, the young, those without disability) folks, leaving the public insurer to cover all the more expensive folks--while of course allowing the former to transfer into the latter when it suits them (i.e., when they have kids, get older or have a major ill-health episode that drives up their private premiums).
Now, I get it DP that you are saying that this all goes to that part you agree with--i.e., "the policy" analysis--but fails to address the part you are raising concerns about, namely "the politics." But it's not helpful in raising the politics concern to mis-state the facts (as in, people will still be free to get supplemental coverage) or ignore the policy implications (competing coverage will simply undermine the feasibility of public insurance).
As for the politics: well, no surprise there, I fully agree with Chris's analysis on that front.
Very funny, the sequence of last couple of posts on this and other thread. We're tag-teaming like Bernie + Liz last night, Chris! (I call Bernie!)
ReplyDeleteBtw, as much as I share your glow from last night's wonderful debate, Chris, and as much as I've always been more explicitly pro-Warren than you were comfortable with in the past, might I suggest we have a little caution before fully signing on to the Liz bandwagon. Yes, she was great last night, has been great much of this campaign, and in fact has been great the last ten years. *But* she was a long-standing Republican, continues to differentiate herself from Bernie on matters of fundamental principle, and so we have to remember the difference between:
(1) Managerial liberalism: (a) a vision of let's regulate markets to make them work better, (b) via the means of better deal-making and expertise; and
(2) Democratic socialism: (a) a vision of let's put markets in their place, for the sake of universal access to basic goods of personhood and citizenship, (b) via the means of popular support for wholesale transformation of the terms of debate and rules of the game.
In other words: love Liz, but without Bernie the whole thing collapses. We need Sanders to keep Warren's feet to the first. Not that you're saying any different, but just wanted to be sure.
"Warren's feet to the *fire*."
ReplyDeleteTalha, completely agree. If Sanders wasn't a constant pressure on her, she wouldn't be the phoenix she was last night. And the whole thing collapses without Sanders. Absolutely. However, the reason I'm giddy about last night is that it does help our cause when these people publicly promise certain things, so that even if Bernie drops dead tomorrow, or bows out of the race, we can now still hold her feet to the fire on explicit promises she made in a public setting.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I liked about the debate - and in the case of Klobuchar it was a literal Freudian slip - is that EVERY candidate, even the moderate corporate hacks, all stated that THE present political problem is money in politics and as such, good legislation will never get passed. Bernie has and is continually redefining the parties entire platform, and we are finally have a genuine leftward tilt! Glad to see Warren is jogging leftward, and not begrudgingly moping left, arms akimbo.
You may be interested in this bit of analysis too, regarding Warren's previous behavior in 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P75KlQ2Xm6I
----------
I do have one overall fear though. Since it's good that Warren and Sanders not fight, and remain compatriots in the battle against the Democratic parties establishment roots, we have a real problem on our hands if or when those two actually do have to go head to head. I COMPLETELY sympathize with people who said never Hillary after Bernie lost (I was one of them). However, whenever these two must part ways, god I hope their mutual supporters are amicable about the process and fully embrace the remaining candidate.
Bernie is 77, almost 78. No one at that age (I'm 73 myself) functions as well as they did at 45. One has less physical energy, one has small problems with short term memory which can be very embarrassing at times (you can't remember your next door neighbor's name) and almost everyone at that age, has chronic ailments, some not so serious (my sciatica), some more serious (my coronary arrhythmia). I doubt that nature has miraculously spared Bernie.
ReplyDeleteBernie is a man of principles, not personally ambitious. That is, he does not want to become president out of ambition, but to move U.S. politics leftward. Still, he wonders if at his age he will have the energy and physical health to carry out that task, even if he is elected.
However, he finds that Elizabeth Warren shares many of his ideals and that he can pressure her leftward. Thus, while on a certain level, he still strives for the presidential nomination, on another level, he bets on Elizabeth Warren to carry out some of the political tasks he had set for himself. She's not perfect, she's not as ideologically solid as he is, but she'll do.
Fully agree, Chris. Including on the key points of being giddy and the full-on redefinition of the terms of debate that is happening before our eyes. On the latter, love how pathetic and flat Mayor Pete's attempts to skirt ideological substance via "generational" blather and other feel-good filler kept falling flat. Or at least I thought so--pundits seem to think he did well. I thought besides our two only Marianne Williamson really came off well.
ReplyDeleteYes agree with your concern. We just have to hope that the two realize that a joint ticket would be a real cincher--their demographics are in fact quite different in terms of income of supporters: Bernie has more overlap with Biden folks, while Warren with Harris folks. Sanders/Warren is the dream ticket--and the polar opposite of Biden/Harris, which is the full-on nightmare.
M.W. Did come off well, tantamount to that man I love dearly, Kucinich!
ReplyDeleteAlso, she stated after the debate that after listening to Sanders and Warren she is coming around to their version of Medicare for all. Appreciate the intellectual honesty.